Is it possible to vote for the following values in a single candidate or party:
- individual freedom
- religious freedom
- modest social safety net covering individuals from conception to death
- balanced budgeting and fiscal responsibility
- energy conservation and alternative energy development
- making individuals and industry pay the costs, up front, to repair environmental damage resulting from their actions or purchases
- defense against direct aggression upon or within our borders
Sure. Why not?
Are you talking about this election in particular, or about elections theoretically and in general? Your answer to this won’t change my answer above, but I’m still curious.
I’m asking about both the current election and in general.
Insofar as the current U.S. election is concerned, none of the major parties’ platforms seem to permit balanced budgets. Both platforms increase the national debt significantly, albeit in different ways.
Neither party offers a conservative (read: cautious and restrained) position on defense — both parties support varying degrees of pre-emptive action as well as trade with unpopular despots who breed various forms of terrorism.
The Democrats promise something in the way of safety net and environmental protection, but it’s a bit hard to commit to such programs over the long term when the federal budget is $10-12 trillion in the hole and worsening due to voters’ addiction to tax cuts and pork.
Both parties do a lot of posturing on the topic of abortion, but solve nothing.
All in all, I personally hope Obama wins, but I am not wildly enthusiastic about what must come after that.
Both platforms involve spending money or reducing revenue, but both parties want to balance the budget. It actually happened under Clinton. You’d think that a Republican administration, supposedly all about small government, would be able to keep it up. At least ideologically speaking, it is possible.
I see where you’re coming from on defense, but I think exactly what responsible defense policy is can’t be determined by a stubborn promise to be restrained. It’s possible that’s the best way to go about things, but with the realities of fighting terrorism, and the realities of global economics, I’m not sure it’s a good idea to guarantee that restraint you refer to no matter what. (Exactly what being cautious means is surely up for debate, too.)
You’re right, the budget is in terrible shape now, and some priorities will need to be pushed to the sidelines until we recover from that. But there’s nothing inherent about politics that says a politician or a party can’t want to balance the budget and have a solid stance on national defense and care about the environment, and and and…. Maybe we can’t get everything done right now, instantaneously. But I do think we can move towards the right answers, with time.